Religion

Do you Christians here think children should read
the bible?

You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.

However, we will not allow you to violate your child's established rights.

As you see them according to your body of evidence, not mine.

Lets do a quick hypothetical to show you the problem. Lets say I have all the evidence you could ever want that this medicine is going to damn my kid. I've got video interviews with this god taped in front of a live studio audience full of physicists and psychologists making sure everything is real where he physically showed us heaven and hell and let us bring back little vials of sulfur from the lake of fire gift shops, before explaining that this medicine is bad news, but don't worry the kid won't suffer long, I'll take him to heaven. The whole nine yards, I have it all, and you have none of it.

You come over, see me not giving my kid the medicine, so you tell me to do it. I tell you I've got some really, really good reasons not to, but I'm an obstinate son of a ***** so I don't show you that mountain of evidence. I just tell you I have enough and you should bugger of and leave me to it.

You take my kid, give him the pill, and next week on 'Talking with medicine god' there's my kid in the lake of fire because you acted to intervene when logic dictated that there was relevant information that you could not know. You couldn't know whether or not I had evidence, you assumed I didn't, and now my kid burns.

1. That is actually insufficient evidence. The god could be a liar who is going to damn (or save) us all and just did it for the lulz, and there's no way to determine the probability that he is lying. The god could have even told you the exact opposite of the truth so that your kid died painfully and next week on 'Talking with medicine god' there's your kid in the lake of fire because you didn't give him medicine.

2. What does your live audience matter if the people who saw it won't tell us that they did? It's not like everything is done by me personally. If there actually is a bunch of evidence and I've just been living under a rock society should stop me from stopping you. It's still all about the evidence that is available to the public.

Now we're back to the case where a small group of people has evidence and refuses to share. Really, how ungrateful of you. That god went out of his way to give you all that evidence and you wouldn't even do what you had to to save your child. Not much of a protector of his rights, wouldn't you say?

Chiding of your ridiculous position aside, I've already explained this. The alternative is to let parents get away with abuses. I gave you a big post about it and you didn't address it at all. I'm not going over that again.

So you're going to act illogically by taking action when you know you are missing important data because bad things might happen if your unsupported hunches are right.

I don't know that at all. You could be one of those lying abusive parents.

We've gotten down to the point where we're competing between allowing for rampant child abuse or not allowing parents to flip off their obligation to protect their children because they're too lazy. If you won't fulfill your obligation someone else gets it. Easy.

Really, that's it at the end of the day. You're stepping in to mess with my kid based on your best estimate of what the correct course of action is. You feel totally justified in doing that, because you are confident of your methods, and you don't care a whit how I feel about it.

When the situation is reversed, I think you'd be making a different argument. I think you'd be arguing that you should keep your kid because you know what is right for him, and you are confident in your methods for determining that, and you don't care how society feels about that.

The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick

Yes you do. You know that the only way you can know if I have evidence saying what I'm doing is right is if I show it to you, or admit that I have none. If I've done neither thing, you know there is an important piece of data that you don't have.

The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick

Really, that's it at the end of the day. You're stepping in to mess with my kid based on your best estimate of what the correct course of action is. You feel totally justified in doing that, because you are confident of your methods, and you don't care a whit how I feel about it.

When the situation is reversed, I think you'd be making a different argument. I think you'd be arguing that you should keep your kid because you know what is right for him, and you are confident in your methods for determining that, and you don't care how society feels about that.

No one said it had to be happy for the parent losing their kid. It's about the kid's rights, not the parent's. Parents who can't be assed to save their kids from eternal damnation when the method is obvious are not fulfilling their obligation to care for their child. That's bound to be painful for them. It would suck for me if I were in their shoes. I might make bad arguments out of desperation. I don't care. Logic, unlike such parents' method, has been shown time and again to work, so we'll use it.